Long-term follow-up study of necrotising pancreatitis: interventions, complications and quality of life.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the long-term consequences of necrotising pancreatitis, including complications, the need for interventions and the quality of life. DESIGN: Long-term follow-up of a prospective multicentre cohort of 373 necrotising pancreatitis patients (2005-2008) was performed. Patients were prospectively evaluated and received questionnaires. Readmissions (ie, for recurrent or chronic pancreatitis), interventions, pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life were compared between initial treatment groups: conservative, endoscopic/percutaneous drainage alone and necrosectomy. Associations of patient and disease characteristics during index admission with outcomes during follow-up were assessed. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 13.5 years (range 12-15.5 years), 97/373 patients (26%) were readmitted for recurrent pancreatitis. Endoscopic or percutaneous drainage was performed in 47/373 patients (13%), of whom 21/47 patients (45%) were initially treated conservatively. Pancreatic necrosectomy or pancreatic surgery was performed in 31/373 patients (8%), without differences between treatment groups. Endocrine insufficiency (126/373 patients; 34%) and exocrine insufficiency (90/373 patients; 38%), developed less often following conservative treatment (p<0.001 and p=0.016, respectively). Quality of life scores did not differ between groups. Pancreatic gland necrosis >50% during initial admission was associated with percutaneous/endoscopic drainage (OR 4.3 (95% CI 1.5 to 12.2)), pancreatic surgery (OR 3.2 (95% CI 1.1 to 9.5) and development of endocrine insufficiency (OR13.1 (95% CI 5.3 to 32.0) and exocrine insufficiency (OR6.1 (95% CI 2.4 to 15.5) during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Acute necrotising pancreatitis carries a substantial disease burden during long-term follow-up in terms of recurrent disease, the necessity for interventions and development of pancreatic insufficiency, even when treated conservatively during the index admission. Extensive (>50%) pancreatic parenchymal necrosis seems to be an important predictor of interventions and complications during follow-up.

Long-Term Outcome of Immediate Versus Postponed Intervention in Patients With Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (POINTER): Multicenter Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the long-term outcomes of immediate drainage versus the postponed-drainage approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. BACKGROUND: In the randomized POINTER trial, patients assigned to the postponed-drainage approach using antibiotic treatment required fewer interventions, as compared with immediate drainage, and over a third were treated without any intervention. METHODS: Clinical data of those patients alive after the initial 6-month follow-up were re-evaluated. The primary outcome was a composite of death and major complications. RESULTS: Out of 104 patients, 88 were re-evaluated with a median follow-up of 51 months. After the initial 6-month follow-up, the primary outcome occurred in 7 of 47 patients (15%) in the immediate-drainage group and 7 of 41 patients (17%) in the postponed-drainage group (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.33-2.28; P =0.78). Additional drainage procedures were performed in 7 patients (15%) versus 3 patients (7%) (RR 2.03; 95% CI 0.56-7.37; P =0.34). The median number of additional interventions was 0 (IQR 0-0) in both groups ( P =0.028). In the total follow-up, the median number of interventions was higher in the immediate-drainage group than in the postponed-drainage group (4 vs. 1, P =0.001). Eventually, 14 of 15 patients (93%) in the postponed-drainage group who were successfully treated in the initial 6-month follow-up with antibiotics and without any intervention remained without intervention. At the end of follow-up, pancreatic function and quality of life were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Also, during long-term follow-up, a postponed-drainage approach using antibiotics in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis results in fewer interventions as compared with immediate drainage and should therefore be the preferred approach. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN33682933.

Immediate versus Postponed Intervention for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis.

BACKGROUND: Infected necrotizing pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease that is treated with the use of a step-up approach, with catheter drainage often delayed until the infected necrosis is encapsulated. Whether outcomes could be improved by earlier catheter drainage is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized superiority trial involving patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis, in which we compared immediate drainage within 24 hours after randomization once infected necrosis was diagnosed with drainage that was postponed until the stage of walled-off necrosis was reached. The primary end point was the score on the Comprehensive Complication Index, which incorporates all complications over the course of 6 months of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 104 patients were randomly assigned to immediate drainage (55 patients) or postponed drainage (49 patients). The mean score on the Comprehensive Complication Index (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating more severe complications) was 57 in the immediate-drainage group and 58 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, -1; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12 to 10; P = 0.90). Mortality was 13% in the immediate-drainage group and 10% in the postponed-drainage group (relative risk, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.42 to 3.68). The mean number of interventions (catheter drainage and necrosectomy) was 4.4 in the immediate-drainage group and 2.6 in the postponed-drainage group (mean difference, 1.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 3.0). In the postponed-drainage group, 19 patients (39%) were treated conservatively with antibiotics and did not require drainage; 17 of these patients survived. The incidence of adverse events was similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: This trial did not show the superiority of immediate drainage over postponed drainage with regard to complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. Patients randomly assigned to the postponed-drainage strategy received fewer invasive interventions. (Funded by Fonds NutsOhra and Amsterdam UMC; POINTER ISRCTN Registry number, ISRCTN33682933.).

Gallstones as a cause in presumed acute alcoholic pancreatitis: observational multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Data on the incidence and clinical relevance of gallstones in patients with suspected acute alcoholic pancreatitis are lacking and are essential to minimize the risk of recurrent acute pancreatitis. The aim of this study was to assess the incidence of gallstones and the associated rate of recurrent acute pancreatitis in patients with presumed acute alcoholic pancreatitis. METHODS: Between 2008 and 2019, 23 hospitals prospectively enrolled patients with acute pancreatitis. Those diagnosed with their first episode of presumed acute alcoholic pancreatitis were included in this study. The term gallstones was used to describe the presence of cholelithiasis or biliary sludge found during imaging. The primary outcome was pancreatitis recurrence during 3 years of follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 334 patients were eligible for inclusion, of whom 316 were included in the follow-up analysis. Gallstone evaluation, either during the index admission or during follow-up, was performed for 306 of 334 patients (91.6%). Gallstones were detected in 54 patients (17.6%), with a median time to detection of 6 (interquartile range 0-42) weeks. During follow-up, recurrent acute pancreatitis occurred in 121 of 316 patients (38.3%), with a significantly higher incidence rate for patients with gallstones compared with patients without gallstones (59% versus 34.2% respectively; P < 0.001), while more patients with gallstones had stopped drinking alcohol at the time of their first recurrence (41% versus 24% respectively; P = 0.020). Cholecystectomy was performed for 19 patients with gallstones (36%). The recurrence rate was lower for patients in the cholecystectomy group compared with patients who did receive inadequate treatment or no treatment (5/19 versus 19/34 respectively; P = 0.038). CONCLUSION: Gallstones were found in almost one in every five patients diagnosed with acute alcoholic pancreatitis. Gallstones were associated with a higher rate of recurrent pancreatitis, while undergoing cholecystectomy was associated with a reduction in this rate.

A Prediction Model for Successful Increase of Adalimumab Dose Intervals in Patients with Crohn's Disease: Secondary Analysis of the Pragmatic Open-Label Randomised Controlled Non-inferiority LADI Trial.

BACKGROUND: In the pragmatic open-label randomised controlled non-inferiority LADI trial we showed that increasing adalimumab (ADA) dose intervals was non-inferior to conventional dosing for persistent flares in patients with Crohn's disease (CD) in clinical and biochemical remission. AIMS: To develop a prediction model to identify patients who can successfully increase their ADA dose interval based on secondary analysis of trial data. METHODS: Patients in the intervention group of the LADI trial increased ADA intervals to 3 and then to 4 weeks. The dose interval increase was defined as successful when patients had no persistent flare (> 8 weeks), no intervention-related severe adverse events, no rescue medication use during the study, and were on an increased dose interval while in clinical and biochemical remission at week 48. Prediction models were based on logistic regression with relaxed LASSO. Models were internally validated using bootstrap optimism correction. RESULTS: We included 109 patients, of which 60.6% successfully increased their dose interval. Patients that were active smokers (odds ratio [OR] 0.90), had previous CD-related intra-abdominal surgeries (OR 0.85), proximal small bowel disease (OR 0.92), an increased Harvey-Bradshaw Index (OR 0.99) or increased faecal calprotectin (OR 0.997) were less likely to successfully increase their dose interval. The model had fair discriminative ability (AUC = 0.63) and net benefit analysis showed that the model could be used to select patients who could increase their dose interval. CONCLUSION: The final prediction model seems promising to select patients who could successfully increase their ADA dose interval. The model should be validated externally before it may be applied in clinical practice. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03172377.

Patient selection for urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangio-pancreatography by endoscopic ultrasound in predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis (APEC-2): a multicentre prospective study.

OBJECTIVE: Routine urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with endoscopic biliary sphincterotomy (ES) does not improve outcome in patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis. Improved patient selection for ERCP by means of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for stone/sludge detection may challenge these findings. DESIGN: A multicentre, prospective cohort study included patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis. Patients underwent urgent EUS, followed by ERCP with ES in case of common bile duct stones/sludge, within 24 hours after hospital presentation and within 72 hours after symptom onset. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or mortality within 6 months after inclusion. The historical control group was the conservative treatment arm (n=113) of the randomised APEC trial (Acute biliary Pancreatitis: urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment, patient inclusion 2013-2017) applying the same study design. RESULTS: Overall, 83 patients underwent urgent EUS at a median of 21 hours (IQR 17-23) after hospital presentation and at a median of 29 hours (IQR 23-41) after start of symptoms. Gallstones/sludge in the bile ducts were detected by EUS in 48/83 patients (58%), all of whom underwent immediate ERCP with ES. The primary endpoint occurred in 34/83 patients (41%) in the urgent EUS-guided ERCP group. This was not different from the 44% rate (50/113 patients) in the historical conservative treatment group (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.29; p=0.65). Sensitivity analysis to correct for baseline differences using a logistic regression model also showed no significant beneficial effect of the intervention on the primary outcome (adjusted OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.90, p=0.92). CONCLUSION: In patients with predicted severe acute biliary pancreatitis without cholangitis, urgent EUS-guided ERCP with ES did not reduce the composite endpoint of major complications or mortality, as compared with conservative treatment in a historical control group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN15545919.

Complete Endoscopic Healing Is Associated With Lower Relapse Risk After Anti-TNF Withdrawal in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Discontinuation of anti-tumor necrosis factor-α treatment (anti-TNF) (infliximab and adalimumab) in patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is associated with a high relapse risk that may be influenced by endoscopic activity at the time of stopping. We assessed the relapse rate after anti-TNF withdrawal in patients with endoscopic healing and studied predictors of relapse including the depth of endoscopic healing. METHODS: This was a multicenter, prospective study in adult patients with Crohn's disease (CD), ulcerative colitis (UC), or IBD-unclassified (IBDU), with ≥6 months of corticosteroid-free clinical remission (confirmed at baseline) and endoscopic healing (Mayo <2/SES-CD <5 without large ulcers), who discontinued anti-TNF between 2018 and 2020 in the Netherlands. We performed Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses to assess the relapse rate and evaluate potential predictors: partial (Mayo 1/SES-CD 3-4) versus complete (Mayo 0/SES-CD 0-2) endoscopic healing, anti-TNF trough levels, and immunomodulator and/or mesalamine use. RESULTS: Among 81 patients (CD: n = 41, 51%) with a median follow-up of 2.0 years (interquartile range, 1.6-2.1), 40 patients (49%) relapsed. Relapse rates in CD and UC/IBDU patients were comparable. At 12 months, 70% versus 35% of patients with partial versus complete endoscopic healing relapsed, respectively (adjusted hazard rate [aHR], 3.28; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.43-7.50). Mesalamine use was associated with fewer relapses in UC/IBDU patients (aHR, 0.08; 95% CI, 0.01-0.67). Thirty patients restarted anti-TNF, and clinical remission was regained in 73% at 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: The relapse risk was high after anti-TNF withdrawal in IBD patients with endoscopic healing, but remission was regained in most cases after anti-TNF reintroduction. Complete endoscopic healing and mesalamine treatment in UC/IBDU patients decreased the risk of relapse.

Superior Effectiveness of Tofacitinib Compared to Vedolizumab in Anti-TNF-experienced Ulcerative Colitis Patients: A Nationwide Dutch Registry Study.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Clinicians face difficulty in when and in what order to position biologics and Janus kinase inhibitors in patients with anti-tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF) refractory ulcerative colitis (UC). We aimed to compare the effectiveness and safety of vedolizumab and tofacitinib in anti-TNF-exposed patients with UC in our prospective nationwide Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Registry. METHODS: Patients with UC who failed anti-TNF treatment and initiated vedolizumab or tofacitinib treatment were identified in the Initiative on Crohn and Colitis Registry in the Netherlands. We selected patients with both clinical as well as biochemical or endoscopic disease activity at initiation of therapy. Patients previously treated with vedolizumab or tofacitinib were excluded. Corticosteroid-free clinical remission (Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index ≤2), biochemical remission (C-reactive protein ≤5 mg/L or fecal calprotectin ≤250 µg/g), and safety outcomes were compared after 52 weeks of treatment. Inverse propensity score-weighted comparison was used to adjust for confounding and selection bias. RESULTS: Overall, 83 vedolizumab- and 65 tofacitinib-treated patients were included. Propensity score-weighted analysis showed that tofacitinib-treated patients were more likely to achieve corticosteroid-free clinical remission and biochemical remission at weeks 12, 24, and 52 compared with vedolizumab-treated patients (odds ratio [OR], 6.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.81-10.50; P < .01; OR, 3.02; 95% CI, 1.89-4.84; P < .01; and OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.15-2.99; P = .01; and OR, 3.27; 95% CI, 1.96-5.45; P < .01; OR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.14-3.07; P = .01; and OR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.06-3.09; P = .03, respectively). There was no difference in infection rate or severe adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Tofacitinib was associated with superior effectiveness outcomes compared with vedolizumab in anti-TNF-experienced patients with UC along with comparable safety outcomes.

Endoscopic Versus Surgical Step-Up Approach for Infected Necrotizing Pancreatitis (ExTENSION): Long-term Follow-up of a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Previous randomized trials, including the Transluminal Endoscopic Step-Up Approach Versus Minimally Invasive Surgical Step-Up Approach in Patients With Infected Pancreatic Necrosis (TENSION) trial, demonstrated that the endoscopic step-up approach might be preferred over the surgical step-up approach in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis based on favorable short-term outcomes. We compared long-term clinical outcomes of both step-up approaches after a period of at least 5 years. METHODS: In this long-term follow-up study, we reevaluated all clinical data on 83 patients (of the originally 98 included patients) from the TENSION trial who were still alive after the initial 6-month follow-up. The primary end point, similar to the TENSION trial, was a composite of death and major complications. Secondary end points included individual major complications, pancreaticocutaneous fistula, reinterventions, pancreatic insufficiency, and quality of life. RESULTS: After a mean follow-up period of 7 years, the primary end point occurred in 27 patients (53%) in the endoscopy group and in 27 patients (57%) in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65-1.32; P = .688). Fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas were identified in the endoscopy group (8% vs 34%; RR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83). After the initial 6-month follow-up, the endoscopy group needed fewer reinterventions than the surgery group (7% vs 24%; RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.09-0.99). Pancreatic insufficiency and quality of life did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: At long-term follow-up, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing death or major complications in patients with infected necrotizing pancreatitis. However, patients assigned to the endoscopic approach developed overall fewer pancreaticocutaneous fistulas and needed fewer reinterventions after the initial 6-month follow-up. Netherlands Trial Register no: NL8571.

Short-term and Long-term Outcomes of a Disruption and Disconnection of the Pancreatic Duct in Necrotizing Pancreatitis: A Multicenter Cohort Study in 896 Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Necrotizing pancreatitis may result in a disrupted or disconnected pancreatic duct (DPD) with the potential for long-lasting negative impact on a patient's clinical outcome. There is a lack of detailed data on the full clinical spectrum of DPD, which is critical for the development of better diagnostic and treatment strategies. METHODS: We performed a long-term post hoc analysis of a prospectively collected nationwide cohort of 896 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis (2005-2015). The median follow-up after hospital admission was 75 months (P25-P75: 41-151). Clinical outcomes of patients with and without DPD were compared using regression analyses, adjusted for potential confounders. Predictive features for DPD were explored. RESULTS: DPD was confirmed in 243 (27%) of the 896 patients and resulted in worse clinical outcomes during both the patient's initial admission and follow-up. During hospital admission, DPD was associated with an increased rate of new-onset intensive care unit admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.62-3.93), new-onset organ failure (aOR 2.26; 95% CI 1.45-3.55), infected necrosis (aOR 4.63; 95% CI 2.87-7.64), and pancreatic interventions (aOR 7.55; 95% CI 4.23-13.96). During long-term follow-up, DPD increased the risk of pancreatic intervention (aOR 9.71; 95% CI 5.37-18.30), recurrent pancreatitis (aOR 2.08; 95% CI 1.32-3.29), chronic pancreatitis (aOR 2.73; 95% CI 1.47-5.15), and endocrine pancreatic insufficiency (aOR 1.63; 95% CI 1.05-2.53). Central or subtotal pancreatic necrosis on computed tomography (OR 9.49; 95% CI 6.31-14.29) and a high level of serum C-reactive protein in the first 48 hours after admission (per 10-point increase, OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.00-1.03) were identified as independent predictors for developing DPD. DISCUSSION: At least 1 of every 4 patients with necrotizing pancreatitis experience DPD, which is associated with detrimental, short-term and long-term interventions, and complications. Central and subtotal pancreatic necrosis and high levels of serum C-reactive protein in the first 48 hours are independent predictors for DPD.

Prospective multicentre study of indications for surgery in patients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis following endoscopic ultrasonography (PICUS).

BACKGROUND: Cholecystectomy in patients with idiopathic acute pancreatitis (IAP) is controversial. A randomized trial found cholecystectomy to reduce the recurrence rate of IAP but did not include preoperative endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS). As EUS is effective in detecting gallstone disease, cholecystectomy may be indicated only in patients with gallstone disease. This study aimed to determine the diagnostic value of EUS in patients with IAP, and the rate of recurrent pancreatitis in patients in whom EUS could not determine the aetiology (EUS-negative IAP). METHODS: This prospective multicentre cohort study included patients with a first episode of IAP who underwent outpatient EUS. The primary outcome was detection of aetiology by EUS. Secondary outcomes included adverse events after EUS, recurrence of pancreatitis, and quality of life during 1-year follow-up. RESULTS: After screening 957 consecutive patients with acute pancreatitis from 24 centres, 105 patients with IAP were included and underwent EUS. In 34 patients (32 per cent), EUS detected an aetiology: (micro)lithiasis and biliary sludge (23.8 per cent), chronic pancreatitis (6.7 per cent), and neoplasms (2.9 per cent); 2 of the latter patients underwent pancreatoduodenectomy. During 1-year follow-up, the pancreatitis recurrence rate was 17 per cent (12 of 71) among patients with EUS-negative IAP versus 6 per cent (2 of 34) among those with positive EUS. Recurrent pancreatitis was associated with poorer quality of life. CONCLUSION: EUS detected an aetiology in a one-third of patients with a first episode of IAP, requiring mostly cholecystectomy or pancreatoduodenectomy. The role of cholecystectomy in patients with EUS-negative IAP remains uncertain and warrants further study.

Some patients develop acute inflammation of the pancreas without a clear cause. These patients have a high risk of developing more episodes of acute inflammation of the pancreas. Potentially, such inflammation could be caused by tiny gallstones that physicians are not able to detect. If this is true, these patients may also benefit from surgical removal of the gallbladder. However, this is still controversial. Endoscopic ultrasonography is a diagnostic procedure during which a physician looks at the gallbladder and bile ducts in detail via a small ultrasound probe inserted through the mouth. This endoscopic ultrasonography may be able to detect gallstones better than physicians were able to previously. This study tested the value of endoscopic ultrasonography, and the number of patients who developed more episodes of acute inflammation after endoscopic ultrasonography was recorded. Some 106 patients with acute inflammation of the pancreas for the first time without a clear cause participated and were offered endoscopic ultrasonography. The number of times endoscopic ultrasonography found a cause for the acute inflammation was recorded, as well as safety parameters, number of patients who developed more episodes of acute inflammation, and quality of life. After screening 957 patients, 105 ultimately underwent endoscopic ultrasonography. A cause was found in one-third of patients. This was mostly (tiny) gallstones, but chronic inflammation and even tumours were found. These patients were mostly treated surgically for their gallstones and tumours. In the first year after the first acute episode of inflammation, the inflammation came back at least once in almost one in six patients in whom endoscopic ultrasonography did not find a cause. This occurred less in patients in whom a cause was found; the inflammation came back in 1 in 16 of these patients. It was also found that having inflammation coming back negatively affected quality of life. In this study, endoscopic ultrasonography was able to detect a cause in one-third of patients with first-time acute inflammation of the pancreas. In one in four patients, this cause could be treated by a surgical procedure. Whether surgical removal of the gallbladder can be helpful in patients in whom endoscopic ultrasonography is not able to detect an aetiology should be investigated in further studies.

Optimal timing of cholecystectomy after necrotising biliary pancreatitis.

OBJECTIVE: Following an episode of acute biliary pancreatitis, cholecystectomy is advised to prevent recurrent biliary events. There is limited evidence regarding the optimal timing and safety of cholecystectomy in patients with necrotising biliary pancreatitis. DESIGN: A post hoc analysis of a multicentre prospective cohort. Patients with biliary pancreatitis and a CT severity score of three or more were included in 27 Dutch hospitals between 2005 and 2014. Primary outcome was the optimal timing of cholecystectomy in patients with necrotising biliary pancreatitis, defined as: the optimal point in time with the lowest risk of recurrent biliary events and the lowest risk of complications of cholecystectomy. Secondary outcomes were the number of recurrent biliary events, periprocedural complications of cholecystectomy and the protective value of endoscopic sphincterotomy for the recurrence of biliary events. RESULTS: Overall, 248 patients were included in the analysis. Cholecystectomy was performed in 191 patients (77%) at a median of 103 days (P25-P75: 46-222) after discharge. Infected necrosis after cholecystectomy occurred in four (2%) patients with persistent peripancreatic collections. Before cholecystectomy, 66 patients (27%) developed biliary events. The risk of overall recurrent biliary events prior to cholecystectomy was significantly lower before 10 weeks after discharge (risk ratio 0.49 (95% CI 0.27 to 0.90); p=0.02). The risk of recurrent pancreatitis before cholecystectomy was significantly lower before 8 weeks after discharge (risk ratio 0.14 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.0); p=0.02). The complication rate of cholecystectomy did not decrease over time. Endoscopic sphincterotomy did not reduce the risk of recurrent biliary events (OR 1.40 (95% CI 0.74 to 2.83)). CONCLUSION: The optimal timing of cholecystectomy after necrotising biliary pancreatitis, in the absence of peripancreatic collections, is within 8 weeks after discharge.

Quality of Surveillance Impacts the Colitis-Associated Advanced Neoplasia Risk: A Multicenter Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Although colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance is embedded in clinical inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) practice, a subset of patients still develops advanced neoplasia (AN) (high-grade dysplasia [HGD] and/or CRC). We aimed to assess the impact of surveillance quality on AN risk in IBD. METHODS: In this multicenter case-control study, we searched the Dutch nationwide pathology databank to identify IBD cases with AN and controls with indefinite or low-grade dysplasia. The surveillance colonoscopy preceding the index lesion (first indefinite for dysplasia [IND]/low-grade dysplasia [LGD] or AN) was used to assess the impact of surveillance quality. We assessed intervals, bowel preparation, cecal intubation, and absence of inflammation as primary quality indicators. In addition, we assessed chromoendoscopy, endoscopist expertise, hospital setting, and biopsy strategy. Associations of quality indicators with AN risk were determined with multivariable logistic regression analyses with Firth's correction. RESULTS: We included 137 cases and 138 controls. Delayed intervals (58.2% vs 39.6%) and active inflammation (65.3% vs 41.8%) were frequently present in cases and controls and were associated with AN (delayed interval: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.07-3.81; P = .03; active inflammation: aOR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.33-4.61; P < .01). Surveillance compliant with primary quality indicators was associated with a reduced AN risk (aOR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.22-0.91; P = .03), similar to chromoendoscopy (OR, 0.11; 95% CI, 0.01-0.89; P = .01). Other indicators were not significantly associated with AN. CONCLUSIONS: Surveillance compliant with primary quality indicators is associated with a reduced colitis-associated AN risk. Delayed surveillance intervals and active inflammation were associated with an increased AN risk. This underlines the importance of procedural quality, including endoscopic remission to optimize the effectiveness of endoscopic surveillance.

Urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment in predicted severe acute gallstone pancreatitis (APEC): a multicentre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: It remains unclear whether urgent endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) with biliary sphincterotomy improves the outcome of patients with gallstone pancreatitis without concomitant cholangitis. We did a randomised trial to compare urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy versus conservative treatment in patients with predicted severe acute gallstone pancreatitis. METHODS: In this multicentre, parallel-group, assessor-masked, randomised controlled superiority trial, patients with predicted severe (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score ≥8, Imrie score ≥3, or C-reactive protein concentration >150 mg/L) gallstone pancreatitis without cholangitis were assessed for eligibility in 26 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based randomisation module with randomly varying block sizes to urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy (within 24 h after hospital presentation) or conservative treatment. The primary endpoint was a composite of mortality or major complications (new-onset persistent organ failure, cholangitis, bacteraemia, pneumonia, pancreatic necrosis, or pancreatic insufficiency) within 6 months of randomisation. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN97372133. FINDINGS: Between Feb 28, 2013, and March 1, 2017, 232 patients were randomly assigned to urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy (n=118) or conservative treatment (n=114). One patient from each group was excluded from the final analysis because of cholangitis (urgent ERCP group) and chronic pancreatitis (conservative treatment group) at admission. The primary endpoint occurred in 45 (38%) of 117 patients in the urgent ERCP group and in 50 (44%) of 113 patients in the conservative treatment group (risk ratio [RR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·64-1·18; p=0·37). No relevant differences in the individual components of the primary endpoint were recorded between groups, apart from the occurrence of cholangitis (two [2%] of 117 in the urgent ERCP group vs 11 [10%] of 113 in the conservative treatment group; RR 0·18, 95% CI 0·04-0·78; p=0·010). Adverse events were reported in 87 (74%) of 118 patients in the urgent ERCP group versus 91 (80%) of 114 patients in the conservative treatment group. INTERPRETATION: In patients with predicted severe gallstone pancreatitis but without cholangitis, urgent ERCP with sphincterotomy did not reduce the composite endpoint of major complications or mortality, compared with conservative treatment. Our findings support a conservative strategy in patients with predicted severe acute gallstone pancreatitis with an ERCP indicated only in patients with cholangitis or persistent cholestasis. FUNDING: The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development, Fonds NutsOhra, and the Dutch Patient Organization for Pancreatic Diseases.

Cross-cultural translation and validation of the IBD-control questionnaire in The Netherlands: a patient-reported outcome measure in inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: There is a need for easy-to-use patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) practice. The 'IBD-control' is a short IBD-specific questionnaire capturing disease control from the patient's perspective. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) recommends the use of the IBD-control even though it has only been validated in the United Kingdom. We aimed to cross-culturally translate and validate the IBD-control in the Netherlands using IBDREAM, a prospective multicentre IBD registry. METHODS: Lack of ambiguity and acceptability were verified in a pilot patient group (n = 5) after forward-backward translation of the IBD-control. Prospective validation involved completion of the IBD-control, Short Form-36, short IBDQ and disease activity measurement by Physician Global Assessment (PGA) and Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index or Harvey-Bradshaw Index. Test-retest (2-week repeat) was used for measuring reliability. RESULTS: Questionnaires were completed by 998 IBD patients (674 Crohn's disease, 324 ulcerative colitis). Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was 0.82 for the sub-group of 8 questions (IBD-control-8-sub-score). Mean completion time was 105 s. Construct validity analyses demonstrated moderate-to-strong correlations of the IBD-control-8-subscore and the other instruments (0.49-0.81). Test-retest reliability for stable patients was high (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.95). The IBD-control-8-subscore showed good discriminant ability between the PGA categories (ANOVA, p<.001). Sensitivity to change analyses showed large effect sizes of 0.81-1.87 for the IBD-control-8 subscore. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the IBD-control as a rapid, reliable, valid and sensitive instrument for measuring disease control from an IBD patient's perspective in the Netherlands.

Inflammatory bowel disease patients provide reliable self-reported medical information: A multicentre prospective pharmacovigilance monitoring system.

PURPOSE: To assess the agreement between patient-reported and health care provider-reported medical information in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). METHODS: This multicentre, prospective, event monitoring study enrolled adult Crohn's disease (CD) and ulcerative colitis (UC) patients treated with a biological in four medical centers in the Netherlands. At two-monthly intervals, patients completed questionnaires on biological use, combination therapy and indication. The patient-reported information was compared with their electronic health records (EHRs) and analysed for percentage agreement and Cohen's kappa. A reference population from a prospective IBD registry was used to assess the representativeness of the study population. RESULTS: In total, 182 patients (female 50.5%, mean age 42.2 years, CD 76.9%) were included in the analysis. At baseline, 51.0% of the patients were prescribed an immunomodulator (43.9% thiopurines, 7.1% methotrexate), and patients were prescribed biologicals as follows: 59.3% infliximab, 30.2% adalimumab, 9.3% vedolizumab, and 1.1% ustekinumab. Agreement on patient-reported indication and biological use was almost perfect (κ = 0.878 and κ = 1.000, respectively); substantial for combination therapy (κ = 0.672). Gender, age, type of IBD, biological use and combination therapy were comparable with the reference population. CONCLUSION: Systematic patient-reporting by questionnaires was reliable in retrieving indication and treatment specific information from IBD patients. These results indicate that the use of patient-reporting outcomes in daily IBD practice can ensure reliable information collection.

Endoscopic or surgical step-up approach for infected necrotising pancreatitis: a multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Infected necrotising pancreatitis is a potentially lethal disease and an indication for invasive intervention. The surgical step-up approach is the standard treatment. A promising alternative is the endoscopic step-up approach. We compared both approaches to see whether the endoscopic step-up approach was superior to the surgical step-up approach in terms of clinical and economic outcomes. METHODS: In this multicentre, randomised, superiority trial, we recruited adult patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis and an indication for invasive intervention from 19 hospitals in the Netherlands. Patients were randomly assigned to either the endoscopic or the surgical step-up approach. The endoscopic approach consisted of endoscopic ultrasound-guided transluminal drainage followed, if necessary, by endoscopic necrosectomy. The surgical approach consisted of percutaneous catheter drainage followed, if necessary, by video-assisted retroperitoneal debridement. The primary endpoint was a composite of major complications or death during 6-month follow-up. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN09186711. FINDINGS: Between Sept 20, 2011, and Jan 29, 2015, we screened 418 patients with pancreatic or extrapancreatic necrosis, of which 98 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to the endoscopic step-up approach (n=51) or the surgical step-up approach (n=47). The primary endpoint occurred in 22 (43%) of 51 patients in the endoscopy group and in 21 (45%) of 47 patients in the surgery group (risk ratio [RR] 0·97, 95% CI 0·62-1·51; p=0·88). Mortality did not differ between groups (nine [18%] patients in the endoscopy group vs six [13%] patients in the surgery group; RR 1·38, 95% CI 0·53-3·59, p=0·50), nor did any of the major complications included in the primary endpoint. INTERPRETATION: In patients with infected necrotising pancreatitis, the endoscopic step-up approach was not superior to the surgical step-up approach in reducing major complications or death. The rate of pancreatic fistulas and length of hospital stay were lower in the endoscopy group. The outcome of this trial will probably result in a shift to the endoscopic step-up approach as treatment preference. FUNDING: The Dutch Digestive Disease Foundation, Fonds NutsOhra, and the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.

Urinalysis of MMX-mesalazine as a tool to monitor 5-ASA adherence in daily IBD practice.

Adherence is pivotal but challenging in ulcerative colitis (UC) treatment. Many methods to assess adherence are subjective or have limitations. (Nac-)5-aminosalicylic acid (5-ASA) urinalysis by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) seems feasible and reproducible in healthy volunteers. We performed a prospective study in adult quiescent UC patients to evaluate the feasibility of spot (Nac-)5-ASA urinalysis by HPLC to assess adherence in daily inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) care. Twenty-nine patients (51.7% male, mean age 52 ± 11 years) were included (median FU 9 months) and weekly spot urine samples were collected. We found large variation in spot (Nac-)5-ASA urinary excretion that was unrelated to brand, dosing schedule or dosage of 5-ASA. In conclusion, spot (Nac-)5-ASA urinalysis is not applicable to assess 5-ASA adherence in daily IBD care.

Implementation of Best Practices in Pancreatic Cancer Care in the Netherlands: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Implementation of new cancer treatment strategies as recommended by evidence-based guidelines is often slow and suboptimal. Objective: To improve the implementation of guideline-based best practices in the Netherlands in pancreatic cancer care and assess the impact on survival. Design, setting, and participants: This multicenter, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial compared enhanced implementation of best practices with usual care in consecutive patients with all stages of pancreatic cancer. It took place from May 22, 2018 through July 9, 2020. Data were analyzed from April 1, 2022, through February 1, 2023. It included all patients in the Netherlands with pathologically or clinically diagnosed pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. This study reports 1-year follow-up (or shorter in case of deceased patients). Intervention: The 5 best practices included optimal use of perioperative chemotherapy, palliative chemotherapy, pancreatic enzyme replacement therapy (PERT), referral to a dietician, and use of metal stents in patients with biliary obstruction. A 6-week implementation period was completed, in a randomized order, in all 17 Dutch networks for pancreatic cancer care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was 1-year survival. Secondary outcomes included adherence to best practices and quality of life (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] global health score). Results: Overall, 5887 patients with pancreatic cancer (median age, 72.0 [IQR, 64.0-79.0] years; 50% female) were enrolled, 2641 before and 2939 after implementation of best practices (307 during wash-in period). One-year survival was 24% vs 23% (hazard ratio, 0.98, 95% CI, 0.88-1.08). There was no difference in the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (11% vs 11%), adjuvant chemotherapy (48% vs 51%), and referral to a dietician (59% vs 63%), while the use of palliative chemotherapy (24% vs 30%; odds ratio [OR], 1.38; 95% CI, 1.10-1.74), PERT (34% vs 45%; OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.28-2.11), and metal biliary stents increased (74% vs 83%; OR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.13-2.80). The EORTC global health score did not improve (area under the curve, 43.9 vs 42.8; median difference, -1.09, 95% CI, -3.05 to 0.94). Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, implementation of 5 best practices in pancreatic cancer care did not improve 1-year survival and quality of life. The finding that most patients received no tumor-directed treatment paired with the poor survival highlights the need for more personalized treatment options. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03513705.

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Loss of Response and Need for Dose Escalation of Infliximab and Adalimumab in Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND: Loss of response to infliximab or adalimumab in ulcerative colitis occurs frequently, and dose escalation may aid in regaining clinical benefit. This study aimed to systematically assess the annual loss of response and dose escalation rates for infliximab and adalimumab in ulcerative colitis. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted from August 1999 to July 2021 for studies reporting loss of response and dose escalation during infliximab and/or adalimumab use in ulcerative colitis patients with primary response. Annual loss of response, dose escalation rates, and clinical benefit after dose escalation were calculated. Subgroup analyses were performed for studies with 1-year follow-up or less. RESULTS: We included 50 unique studies assessing loss of response (infliximab, n = 24; adalimumab, n = 21) or dose escalation (infliximab, n = 21; adalimumab, n = 16). The pooled annual loss of response for infliximab was 10.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.1-14.3) and 13.6% (95% CI, 9.3-19.9) for studies with 1-year follow-up. The pooled annual loss of response for adalimumab was 13.4% (95% CI, 8.2-21.8) and 23.3% (95% CI, 15.4-35.1) for studies with 1-year follow-up. Annual pooled dose escalation rates were 13.8% (95% CI, 8.7-21.7) for infliximab and 21.3% (95% CI, 14.4-31.3) for adalimumab, regaining clinical benefit in 72.4% and 52.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Annual loss of response was 10% for infliximab and 13% for adalimumab, with higher rates during the first year. Annual dose escalation rates were 14% (infliximab) and 21% (adalimumab), with clinical benefit in 72% and 52%, respectively. Uniform definitions are needed to facilitate more robust evaluations.

Annual loss of response in ulcerative colitis was 10% for infliximab and 13% for adalimumab, with higher rates during the first year. Annual dose escalation was higher than loss of response, with clinical benefit for 72% (infliximab) and 52% (adalimumab).